The use of flat panel video displays, such as flat panel televisions, has become increasingly widespread. Flat panel televisions are becoming more and more affordable for consumers as the technology improves. In addition, the variety of sizes of the displays of these flat panel televisions has increased significantly. As a result, more and more consumers are purchasing flat panel televisions of different sizes.
Advances in the manufacturing of flat panel video displays provide for reductions in the cost and thickness of the flat panel video displays. Several years ago flat panel video display televisions cost thousands of dollars. Today they cost hundreds of dollars.
The new thin video displays are known as “ultra-flat panel displays,” and can range from a fraction of an inch to a few inches in thickness. Such displays typically have screen sizes that range from approximately 14 inches to 85 inches diagonally. However, the sizing of the ultra-flat panel displays is fairly uniform in the industry, with common screen sizes, such as 14 inches, 19 inches, 24 inches, 28 inches, 32 inches, 40 inches, 43 inches, 48 inches, 50 inches, 55 inches, 60 inches, 65 inches, 70 inches, 75 inches, 78 inches, and 85 inches. For example, the Samsung UN24H4000 is advertised as a 24-inch flat panel video display that is only 1.9 inches thick and 8.6 pounds (http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consumer/product/un/24/h4/un24h4000afxza/H4000_SpecSheet_7_29_14_1.pdf). Similarly, the Sony XBR-75X910C is advertised as a 75-inch flat panel video display that is only 1.97 inches thick and 74.30 pounds (http://www.sony.com/electronics/televisions/xbr-x910c-x900c-series/specifications). While these flat panel video displays are thin and relatively light in weight, even thinner products are being developed. These newly offered flat display panels are advertised as being as thin as 0.1 inch thick. As this industry develops, flat display panels will continue to be designed thinner and lighter.
Most consumers would prefer not to see flat screen displays in their homes when they are turned off because they appear to be large grey or black boxes hanging on the walls of their bedrooms, living rooms, or kitchens. It is also not practical for the consumer to have the flat panel television remain turned on displaying a picture when the device is not being watched, because this will significantly reduce the lifespan of the display unit. Therefore, it is desirable to cover the screen of the flat panel display with an aesthetically pleasing piece of artwork, such as a print or embroidery, when the display unit is not in use, so as to conceal or disguise the display unit.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,264,765 (“the '765 patent”) describes a cover that can be placed over a flat panel video display screen to provide the consumer with a more aesthetically pleasing look when the display screen is not in use. For example, a configuration according to the '765 patent includes a frame supporting an art canvas print, which conceals the flat screen display. A motorized roller enables the art work to move upward to reveal the flat panel display and downward to cover it. A control for the motor may be activated by a remote control used to turn the flat panel display on and off. Devices made according to this patent have sold for thousands of dollars each. This was a reasonable expense to improve home aesthetics when the cost of the television was even greater. However, with the drop in the cost of the television, purchase of such devices becomes a more difficult choice.
Further, it is burdensome for the consumer to obtain and install the cover described in the '765 patent. A consumer cannot walk into a retail store and purchase a display unit and an accompanying cover. Instead, the consumer must custom order the art print, as well as the art frame cover, based on the size of the display screen. Furthermore, the consumer must have the cover custom-installed by technicians who are skilled in both carpentry, and audio and video technology. This results in an order and installation process that is very expensive and time consuming for the consumer who wishes to use such a cover, over and above the cost of the cover unit itself.
The flat panel video displays described in the '765 patent are also thicker and heavier than the ultra-thin flat panel video displays offered today. Because of their size and weight, the housing that held the flat panel video display in the '765 patent was large and required careful installation so as to ensure that the wall could support the weight of the cover unit and flat panel video display. The '765 patent also disclosed mounting the cover unit in a recess in a wall to hide some of the thickness of the flat panel display. This required a technician or carpenter to cut a hole or create a recess in the wall. The effect was to restrict the homeowners' ability to move the cover unit to another location in their house. Because the current ultra-thin flat panel video displays are so thin, there is no need to try to conceal their thickness.
The cover unit described in the '765 patent also was not amenable to a customer easily changing out the flat panel video display or the art work in the cover unit. Because of the custom sizing and design of the cover unit, a technician would be needed to make any changes of this kind.
Another type of decorative covering and apparatus is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,901,987 (“the '987 patent”). Similar to the '765 patent, the '987 patent relates to a cover unit for a flat panel display where a type of decorative covering can conceal the flat panel display when it is not in use. The '987 patent discloses a system wherein the decorative covering is revealed through the use of two rollers.
Similar to the '765 patent, the '987 patent does not contemplate the use of ultra-thin flat display panels. The cover unit disclosed in the '987 patent has sold for thousands of dollars each, and must be custom made and installed by a trained technician. The artwork in this unit is not easily changed by the customer. Also, the combination of the flat display panel and cover unit is not easily moved by the customer.
United States Patent Publication No. 2008/0049400 (“the '400 publication) attempted to solve some of the issues with the '765 patent. The '400 publication describes a flat screen display cover unit that is mounted to a wall and includes a matte that is disposed within the cover unit. Use of the matte allows for a single-size art frame to accommodate a variety of different flat panel screen sizes and art print sizes. While the '400 publication allows a single cover unit to be used with a variety of flat panel screen and art print sizes, it does not solve any of the other problems described above for the '765 and '987 patents.
Thus, there is a need for an alternative, which can provide the same aesthetically pleasing look while still being cost-effective and easy to use for consumers. In particular, there is the need for a product that consumers can purchase off-the-shelf for less than the thousands of dollars paid for prior art covers and install themselves, without the need for any custom made parts or installation assistance by a trained technician. There is also a need to allow consumers to easily change out the art work and move the entire display and cover unit at will, without the need for a trained technician.